Large Families

[Czerny88]

I'm trying to understand the psychology behind people having large families (by which I mean anything over three children, I guess). NB I'm thinking about people in the 21st century, in the West, with access to contraception and low infant mortality, who don't belong to a culture where it is particularly encouraged to have a large number of children, such as Judaism. And obviously there are circumstances such as multiple births which don't apply.

My visceral feeling is that it is often wrong on many levels. In attempting to enunciate why, I would say people should not have more children than they can afford, than they have time to care for, than can fit comfortably in their living accommodation.

And even in the case where the parents are very wealthy, have a huge house and extra support such as a nanny, there is still the hugely important issue of over-population. It feels like we are at capacity already, without room to increase the population by the amount would result by every couple having even three children.

I'm trying not to be too goady or right-wing, and I have personal reasons for the way I feel (I am involuntarily childless) so please don't be too harsh, but it's something I struggle with ideologically as well as emotionally.

So... AIBU to think that people should be more responsible about how many children they produce and not act solely on their own desires regardless of the potential effects on others? Or is that an unrealistic, draconian expectation?

Because Fluffy, she evidently has problems which have caused her to post the OP.

I don't kick people (or put the boot in for that matter) when they are already down.
It's a maxim which I'm hoping to Instill in to my five children.

I do hope so. It's just unfortunate that it reads as being quite snide.

Because Fluffy, she evidently has problems which have caused her to post the OP

We've all got problems, doesn't make us start such nasty threads.

Pisssssedorf exactly. The child benefit cap is vile
A third and later child will still receive Child Benefit after April 2017.

It is Child Tax Credit that is being stopped for the third and later children as well as housing benefit for more than two children.

"I grew up in the 80s and 90s where most families Asian, or Caucasian had 7 kids or more in a 3 bed terraced house"

Are you immortal? Are you referring to the 1880s and 1890s in your post?

We've all got problems, doesn't make us start such nasty threads.

Admittedly we have all probably got our own crosses to bear. Thankfully however infertility has not been one of mine.
I can't honestly attest that I would have behaved any better than OP were I in her position.

Well how i see it is, the OP or anyone else has no bloody idea of our journeys to become large families. Do you think it came easy "popping out" so many kids? Do you not think we have suffered loses along the way?! No you have no idea.

So while the op may suffer from infertility some of us may actually have a child dead in the ground. Make you feel any better now, one of my 'snotty nosed brats' is dead. Never mind, thats one less kid in your way at the doctors or to wipe your wrinkly ass.

Yes, you're right.
She has no idea.

So stop engaging with her/this thread.

Believe me that will be my last post on here. Have not go the energy to waste on small minded bitter people. I prefer to associate with less judgemental like minded people.

I assumed the poster saying she grew up in the 80s and 90s and everyone had 7+ kids, did not grow up in the UK. I could be wrong.

People keep talking about the average though, like that means anything as to what individual posters will consider normal. Apparently it's 1.88 here in the US, but if you were growing up in a fundamentalist Mormon community, large families would seem like the norm.

Agree with OP, if we can't self moderate then there will come a time when people will have it forced on them. Population has exploded in the last 50 years, in the UK alone it's increased by 20%.

Yes David Attenborough is a patron of Population Matters (as is James Lovelock which I think is a bit rich considering he has four children!) Not being in favour of large families in general isn't IMO the same as saying that someone's children shouldn't have been born.

George Monbiot takes a different line and says that population growth is largely complained about by post-reproductive white men because it is one thing they can't be blamed for. He argues that the rich consume and pollute far, far more than people in countries with high birth rates such as sub-Saharan Africa.

www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

Agree with OP, if we can't self moderate then there will come a time when people will have it forced on them. Population has exploded in the last 50 years, in the UK alone it's increased by 20%

Thats just not true at all. And increases are due to immigration, not birthrate.

And we've been "self moderating" for a very long time, as the birthrate has been falling for a very long time, so no need for the fascist threat of forced contraception and the rest

Environmentalists argue that having children in the west is a bigger problem because we use more resources here

Having more children in the west is a very desirable outcome, actually. In some places birthrates have slipped below replacement level.

Any environmentalist who argues that western people having more children is a problem is an idiot.

Surely cars and cats are just things that people acquire, so the more children you have, the more cats and cars (and many other things) you've indirectly consumed?

Let me repeat that in my head for a while...

No, it still makes no sense at all.

And then we come to 'Indirectly consumed.'
Indirectly consumed.
Indirectly consumed?
Consumed indirectly?
Indirectly.
Consumed.
Indirectly.

I am really scratching my head here. Am I 'indirectly consuming' the resources it takes to keep the Royal Family going? The Formula One industry?
Aren't you doing that too? How are you going to solve the problems posed by your presence on this earth? Why should others do without their resources just so that you can have yours?
Are my children the problem or is the Royal Family and Formula One the problem?

The talk of 'consuming resources' is incredibly offensive. Children in large families are not ravening beasts.

In actual fact, children in small families that tend to be able to afford all new stuff for their one daughter and then all new all over again for their one son are probably using up more.

But so what? People have jobs as a result, and the economy has wheels that need to go round. This is what makes it happen.

No people buying stuff, no economy.

Hmm. Really not convinced that it's all fine and dandy for us westerners to keep having child after child to keep the economy going. Like some crazy pyramid scheme. There are too many people on the planet. If you have more than two some people will think you are selfish. They just will.

"children in small families that tend to be able to afford all new stuff for their one daughter and then all new all over again for their one son are probably using up more."

Plenty of people in small families use hand-me-downs as well, the used clothes don't have to come from a sibling.

"Any environmentalist who argues that western people having more children is a problem is an idiot."

The environmentalists are wrong and you're right. Oh, OK.

All this talk of hand me downs is stacking deck chairs on the titanic. Each child will grow up go into the world and probably have (multiple) children of their own. My friend is one of five. They all had between 3 and 5 kids each. They have to hire a hall to all get together. I find it faintly obscene. I would never say so but I would think it.

"I assumed the poster saying she grew up in the 80s and 90s and everyone had 7+ kids, did not grow up in the UK. I could be wrong."

The OP was specifically about the west so if this poster is talking about somewhere else in the world, she should have made that clear.

Well done, KERALA, for painting yourself as a person who doesn't upset people face to face, but you have said it here, despite the fact that you know there are people on this thread who have more than your approved number of children.

More people (e.g. children) = more cars, more cats. Your children are as likely to have either of these as anyone else. You know, the things that you were saying are a waste of resources? Why are you so confused?

In actual fact, children in small families that tend to be able to afford all new stuff for their one daughter and then all new all over again for their one son are probably using up more.

In actual fact children remain children for a tiny fraction of their existence, and then they go on to acquire all the things as adults that children of small families do while carrying on the pattern of exponential growth (set off by their parents) by having children of their own, even if only 2. This argument holds no water.

I am perfectly entitled to my opinion. It is shared by many.

"From a psychological perspective I personally think it is very interesting unpicking the motives behind super size families. Documentaries which have shown these families are usually women who are "addicted to newborns" which I believe is some type of defence mechanism to childhood trauma."

Yes, and that's why I think a thread like this is worth having. There was a Channel 4 documentary about a couple with 15 children who'd had so many children because they themselves had been in children's homes and they wanted to create the large family they never had. I thought counselling would have been a more appropriate reaction. Children shouldn't be used to make up for their parents' traumatic childhoods.